| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Lake Ontario
Turmoil in Lake Ontario
November 21, 2003 By J. Michael Kelly Staff writer Although he's been studying it intensively for 32 years, Bob O'Gorman lately feels like he knows less than ever about Lake Ontario. "I've never seen such a period of instability in the lake," he said. O'Gorman, a researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Field Station in Oswego, said the lake's food chain is in ferment from top to bottom. Here are some examples: Near the low end of the food web, diporeia, the shrimp-like creatures that fed Lake Ontario forage fish for eons, have virtually disappeared from the water column in the past decade. The decline of diporeia means that the alewives and other small fish that subsisted on them now have to get their calories elsewhere, most likely from another tiny critter called the mysis, or possum shrimp. Rainbow smelt, once one of the two or three most numerous forage species in the lake, now are so scarce that Geological Survey trawlers can barely collect enough for study purposes. O'Gorman suspects the smelt swoon is tied to the shortage of diporeia. With smelt all but absent, alewives are the only significant remaining source of food for the lake's world-famous chinook and coho salmon. Ontario alewives also appear to be stressed. Although the sardine-size fish had back-to-back successful hatches in 2001 and 2002, O'Gorman frets that 40 percent of all alewives in the lake are now age 5 or older. "Those fish are going to start dropping out of the picture pretty soon," he said. Meanwhile, O'Gorman noted, the alewives collected by USGS trawlers last spring "were in the poorest physical condition of any we've seen since we began checking them in 1978." Alewives gathered in a follow-up autumn netting were more robust. O'Gorman thinks alewife numbers dropped sharply between the two surveys, leaving more food for the surviving fish. With smelt rare and alewives skinnier than usual, there are early indications that Ontario salmon may be slenderizing, themselves. At an even 33 pounds, the grand-prize chinook salmon taken in the 2003 Lake Ontario Counties Fall Salmon and Trout Derby was the smallest winner in the contest's eight-year history. What's going on? O'Gorman suspects the turmoil in the Ontario fishery eventually will be traced to the exotic species that have invaded the entire Great Lakes system. Specifically, he thinks it is no coincidence that the dramatic changes he's seeing have taken place since zebra mussels and then quagga mussels migrated from Europe to this side of the Atlantic. Both species hitchhiked to North American in the ballast tanks of cargo ships in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Zebra mussels and quaggas are filter feeders that compete with larval fish and other small organisms for a finite food supply of plankton. While "zeebs" are confined mainly to hard-bottomed, near-shore environs, quaggas thrive throughout Lake Ontario. "They're just creeping out deeper and deeper, as if a doggone carpet was being rolled out from the shores," O'Gorman said. Diporeia used to be thick as fleas in the areas now dominated by quaggas. One theory holds that the mussels have simply crowded the inch-long possum shrimp out of their old habitats. "There are a few deep-water areas where diporeia persist," said O'Gorman. "Why, we don't know. Frankly, we're scratching our heads." With the future of diporeia in doubt, researchers here and in Canada have stepped up their studies of mysis. Several weeks ago, a Geological Survey vessel netted thousands of bait fish in order to analyze their stomach contents. Basically, they want to know what alewives, smelt and sculpins are eating in place of diporeia, and if they're getting enough of it. A similar gut-check in 2002 produced a puzzling result. "In that study, we found that the numbers of mysis were down in alewife stomachs, but were not significantly lower in the stomachs of smelt or sculpin," said O'Gorman. "Once again, we were left to wonder why. Could it be that mysis are for some reason less accessible to alewives than to smelt and sculpins? At this point, we just don't know." Along with such unanswered questions, researchers must deal with a new ecological wild card. Two years ago, the state Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed that a small, perch-like fish called the round goby had shown up in Lake Ontario. The finger-length, European-native gobies are prolific breeders that thrive just about anywhere. "This spring we found them in the lake out to 450 feet deep," said O'Gorman. Gobies are expected to compete with bottom-dwelling sculpins for habitat. Along with zebra mussels, gobies eat the eggs and fry of other small species of fish. The goby's taste for shellfish worries health officials because mussels take up chemical contaminants from lake sediments. If gobies ingest mussels, and game fish eat gobies, there's just one more step to the creatures at the top of the food chain - you and me. Click Here to read the article in the Post Standard. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net |
Lake Ontario
this is an interesting piece......the Great Lakes have undergone considerable
biological shuffling since man started his imprint upon things. One we anglers tend to overlook is the introduction of Pacific Salmonids to the picture. Way more fun to catch than, say, Zebra mussels, but an invasive species nonetheless. Now, the radical way to return Ontario or the other Great Lakes to their "original" status is to eliminate human habitation along the shoreline to a huge degree, end all motor transportation across these lakes, physically remove all non-native species and hope for the best. Anyone out there think this will happen soon?? Tom |
Lake Ontario
Tom,
Not likely. Lake Champlain is facing similar issues. Non-native is an interesting concept. At point in history do we decide is the demarcation point between native and non? Playing the devil's advocate, brown trout are non-native. Apple trees are non-native. Do we eradicate apple trees from the landscape and brown trout from our lakes and streams? I definitely do not know the answer to this one, and I spend an awful amount of time thinking about it when I am fishing and hunting. Geez, most of us are not native. Definitely one of greatest challenges of this generation. Our progress has caught us looking ahead. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Tom Littleton" wrote in message ... this is an interesting piece......the Great Lakes have undergone considerable biological shuffling since man started his imprint upon things. One we anglers tend to overlook is the introduction of Pacific Salmonids to the picture. Way more fun to catch than, say, Zebra mussels, but an invasive species nonetheless. Now, the radical way to return Ontario or the other Great Lakes to their "original" status is to eliminate human habitation along the shoreline to a huge degree, end all motor transportation across these lakes, physically remove all non-native species and hope for the best. Anyone out there think this will happen soon?? Tom |
Lake Ontario
Jim E asks:
At point in history do we decide is the demarcation point between native and non? exactly my point Tom |
Lake Ontario
Outdoors Magazine wrote:
Turmoil in Lake Ontario November 21, 2003 By J. Michael Kelly Staff writer ... For the record, J. Michael Kelly is a staff writer for The Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York not Outdoors Magazine. Posting that entire article here is a copyright violation. Posting it here without proper attribution is plagiarism. Just what kind of sleazeball outfit are you running up there anyway, Ehlers ? http://tinyurl.com/x2u0 -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
Mr. Fortenberry,
I encourage you to read the entire post again where you will find the proper attribution. I encourage you to control your dislike for me, at least here in ROFF, as it leads to you making foolish statements. If you want to send me hate mail .... Feel free: but let's keep this one on topic. Do you have anything constructive to add to the issue of Great Lakes exotics? It is an important issue for Lake Champlain, as well, and any insight you can offer would be appreciated. Are you available for copyright and trademark counsel? I did not realize you were an expert in the field. We might be able to utilize your services on future publishing projects. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .com... Outdoors Magazine wrote: Turmoil in Lake Ontario November 21, 2003 By J. Michael Kelly Staff writer ... For the record, J. Michael Kelly is a staff writer for The Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York not Outdoors Magazine. Posting that entire article here is a copyright violation. Posting it here without proper attribution is plagiarism. Just what kind of sleazeball outfit are you running up there anyway, Ehlers ? http://tinyurl.com/x2u0 -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
Outdoors Magazine wrote:
Mr. Fortenberry, I encourage you to read the entire post again where you will find the proper attribution. There was only this: Click Here to read the article in the Post Standard. That line was not proper attribution. You obviously did a cut and paste from a source that did give attribution in the form of a link, but what you posted here was text only. You dropped the URL, you friggin' moron. You can Click Here until your ****in' finger falls off and there will be no attribution. If you want to send me hate mail ... Feel free: ... I have no reason to correspond with you, but speaking of email, QUIT sending it to me ! I don't need your fruitcake ramblings in my email. ... We might be able to utilize your services on future publishing projects. In your dreams, you stupid whackjob. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
Mr. Fortenberry,
I believe it is you that continues this ... and as long as you continue to send me hate-filled notes I will continue to respond, simply because you need to understand that you cannot push people around with your disgusting behavior. A simple search on your name in Google groups tells me this is normal for you. Besides, Mr. Fortenberry what would you be doing right now if you did not have people like me to attack and debase? Are you that lonely? If you are a Christian, I offer you the Prayer of St. Francis. I offer it, regardless. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .com... Outdoors Magazine wrote: Mr. Fortenberry, I encourage you to read the entire post again where you will find the proper attribution. There was only this: Click Here to read the article in the Post Standard. That line was not proper attribution. You obviously did a cut and paste from a source that did give attribution in the form of a link, but what you posted here was text only. You dropped the URL, you friggin' moron. You can Click Here until your ****in' finger falls off and there will be no attribution. If you want to send me hate mail ... Feel free: ... I have no reason to correspond with you, but speaking of email, QUIT sending it to me ! I don't need your fruitcake ramblings in my email. ... We might be able to utilize your services on future publishing projects. In your dreams, you stupid whackjob. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
From the article:
O'Gorman suspects the turmoil in the Ontario fishery eventually will be traced to the exotic species that have invaded the entire Great Lakes system. Interesting....the introduction of nonindigenous species is adversely affecting other nonindigenous species. Alewives, rainbows, and the Pacific salmon (Chinook and Coho) were all introduced into the Great Lakes. Curious that the article seems to make no mention of this. |
Lake Ontario
Mr. Fortenberry,
I believe it is you that continues this ... and as long as you continue to send me hate-filled notes I will continue to respond, simply because you need to understand that you cannot push people around with your disgusting behavior. A simple search on your name in Google groups tells me this is normal for you. Besides, Mr. Fortenberry what would you be doing right now if you did not have people like me to attack and debase? Are you that lonely? If you are a Christian, I offer you the Prayer of St. Francis. I offer it, regardless. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .com... Outdoors Magazine wrote: Mr. Fortenberry, I encourage you to read the entire post again where you will find the proper attribution. There was only this: Click Here to read the article in the Post Standard. That line was not proper attribution. You obviously did a cut and paste from a source that did give attribution in the form of a link, but what you posted here was text only. You dropped the URL, you friggin' moron. You can Click Here until your ****in' finger falls off and there will be no attribution. If you want to send me hate mail ... Feel free: ... I have no reason to correspond with you, but speaking of email, QUIT sending it to me ! I don't need your fruitcake ramblings in my email. ... We might be able to utilize your services on future publishing projects. In your dreams, you stupid whackjob. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
Good point. Probably because of the economic value of the sportfishery it
is assumed they cannot be done without, regardless. Just a guess. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Chip Bartholomay" wrote in message ... From the article: O'Gorman suspects the turmoil in the Ontario fishery eventually will be traced to the exotic species that have invaded the entire Great Lakes system. Interesting....the introduction of nonindigenous species is adversely affecting other nonindigenous species. Alewives, rainbows, and the Pacific salmon (Chinook and Coho) were all introduced into the Great Lakes. Curious that the article seems to make no mention of this. |
Lake Ontario
Mr. Fortenberry,
I believe it is you that continues this ... and as long as you continue to send me hate-filled notes I will continue to respond, simply because you need to understand that you cannot push people around with your disgusting behavior. A simple search on your name in Google groups tells me this is normal for you. Besides, Mr. Fortenberry what would you be doing right now if you did not have people like me to attack and debase? Are you that lonely? If you are a Christian, I offer you the Prayer of St. Francis. I offer it, regardless. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .com... Outdoors Magazine wrote: Mr. Fortenberry, I encourage you to read the entire post again where you will find the proper attribution. There was only this: Click Here to read the article in the Post Standard. That line was not proper attribution. You obviously did a cut and paste from a source that did give attribution in the form of a link, but what you posted here was text only. You dropped the URL, you friggin' moron. You can Click Here until your ****in' finger falls off and there will be no attribution. If you want to send me hate mail ... Feel free: ... I have no reason to correspond with you, but speaking of email, QUIT sending it to me ! I don't need your fruitcake ramblings in my email. ... We might be able to utilize your services on future publishing projects. In your dreams, you stupid whackjob. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
Good point. Probably because of the economic value of the sportfishery it
is assumed they cannot be done without, regardless. Just a guess. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Chip Bartholomay" wrote in message ... From the article: O'Gorman suspects the turmoil in the Ontario fishery eventually will be traced to the exotic species that have invaded the entire Great Lakes system. Interesting....the introduction of nonindigenous species is adversely affecting other nonindigenous species. Alewives, rainbows, and the Pacific salmon (Chinook and Coho) were all introduced into the Great Lakes. Curious that the article seems to make no mention of this. |
Lake Ontario
Outdoors Magazine wrote:
Mr. Fortenberry, I believe it is you that continues this ... and as long as you continue to send me hate-filled notes I will continue to respond, simply because you need to understand that you cannot push people around with your disgusting behavior. I've told you once, now I'm telling you again, do not send me email. I have never in my life sent you email and I have no intention of ever doing so. You'll learn a hard lesson from your ISP if you continue to harass me via email. A simple search on your name in Google groups tells me this is normal for you. Besides, Mr. Fortenberry what would you be doing right now if you did not have people like me to attack and debase? Are you that lonely? If you are a Christian, I offer you the Prayer of St. Francis. I offer it, regardless. Attack and debase ? Good grief, you truly are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. All this whining and mewling, in triplicate no less, because a so-called editor was caught with his pants down around his ankles violating copyright and plagiarizing. Address THAT issue, you sanctimonious jackass. You're no better than Muskie and almost as annoying, so please allow me to take this opportunity to extend to you my most sincere invitation to go **** yourself. AND QUIT SENDING ME EMAIL !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
Mr. Fortenberry,
The only thing you have caught is a case of bad manners. As usual you have nothing constructive to offer. Enjoy. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .com... Outdoors Magazine wrote: Mr. Fortenberry, I believe it is you that continues this ... and as long as you continue to send me hate-filled notes I will continue to respond, simply because you need to understand that you cannot push people around with your disgusting behavior. I've told you once, now I'm telling you again, do not send me email. I have never in my life sent you email and I have no intention of ever doing so. You'll learn a hard lesson from your ISP if you continue to harass me via email. A simple search on your name in Google groups tells me this is normal for you. Besides, Mr. Fortenberry what would you be doing right now if you did not have people like me to attack and debase? Are you that lonely? If you are a Christian, I offer you the Prayer of St. Francis. I offer it, regardless. Attack and debase ? Good grief, you truly are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. All this whining and mewling, in triplicate no less, because a so-called editor was caught with his pants down around his ankles violating copyright and plagiarizing. Address THAT issue, you sanctimonious jackass. You're no better than Muskie and almost as annoying, so please allow me to take this opportunity to extend to you my most sincere invitation to go **** yourself. AND QUIT SENDING ME EMAIL !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
Outdoors Magazine wrote:
Mr. Fortenberry, I believe it is you that continues this ... Mr. Fortenberry, I believe it is you that continues this ... Mr. Fortenberry, I believe it is you that continues this ... Can anyone remember on ROFF a more stultifying bore than Mr Magazine? At least George knew something about fly fishing and that E-Bay tycoon wannabee in Atlanta had some small amusement value. JR |
Lake Ontario
JR,
Seems Fortenberry is amusing enough for me. Not you? Sincerely, Mr. Magazine -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "JR" wrote in message ... Outdoors Magazine wrote: Mr. Fortenberry, I believe it is you that continues this ... Mr. Fortenberry, I believe it is you that continues this ... Mr. Fortenberry, I believe it is you that continues this ... Can anyone remember on ROFF a more stultifying bore than Mr Magazine? At least George knew something about fly fishing and that E-Bay tycoon wannabee in Atlanta had some small amusement value. JR |
Lake Ontario
Outdoors Magazine wrote:
JR, Seems Fortenberry is amusing enough for me. Not you? That's Mr. JR to you, Magazine Boy. JR --Not surprised to find this one doesn't read English any better than it writes it. |
Lake Ontario
Outdoors Magazine wrote:
Mr. Fortenberry, The only thing you have caught is a case of bad manners. As usual you have nothing constructive to offer. What do I have to do, draw you a ****in' picture ? Posting an entire copyrighted article to a Usenet newsgroup is a copyright violation. If you want us to read an article post ONLY the URL, or if it's over 70 characters long do as I did and post the output from http://tinyurl.com Remember this ? http://tinyurl.com/x2u0 That's the way to do it, you feebleminded moron, and adding a sentence or two, in your own words, telling us why this article is of interest to us is good form also. Now was that "constructive" enough for you ? I would be even more "constructive", but Wolfie would never forgive me if I chased your stupid ass out of here before he had a chance to join in the fun. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
Tom Littleton wrote: Jim E asks: At point in history do we decide is the demarcation point between native and non? exactly my point Tom The preservation of native species is something that is important to me as is the preservation of natural environments. The definitions of what constitutes a native species and natural environments are basic foundations for preservation. I've given this quite a bit of thought and it seems to me that both definitions need to be based on the absence of man's influence. There seems to be a problem with some people on ROFF accepting these definitions. For native, I think I'll start using indigenous hoping that will be more understood. But for a "natural" environment, I don't have another word to substitute. The reason I bring this up is that it's fruitless to discuss an issue if there aren't commonly held definitions. Without common definitions, the essence of the discussion becomes lost. Here's a challenge to you guys that have a problem with the definitions of native and natural being based on mans' intervention: Come up with a meaningful definition for either that doesn't specify an arbitrary, specific time. I don't think you can do it without your definition logically leading to accepting genetically engineered animals as native or a nuclear wasteland as natural. Maybe for some of you a genetically engineered animal could be native and a nuclear wasteland is a natural environment. If so, we're on different planets when we're having discussions using these words. Willi Willi |
Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:11:07 -0700, Willi wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote: Jim E asks: At point in history do we decide is the demarcation point between native and non? exactly my point Tom The preservation of native species is something that is important to me as is the preservation of natural environments. The definitions of what constitutes a native species and natural environments are basic foundations for preservation. I've given this quite a bit of thought and it seems to me that both definitions need to be based on the absence of man's influence. There seems to be a problem with some people on ROFF accepting these definitions. For native, I think I'll start using indigenous hoping that will be more understood. But for a "natural" environment, I don't have another word to substitute. The reason I bring this up is that it's fruitless to discuss an issue if there aren't commonly held definitions. Without common definitions, the essence of the discussion becomes lost. Here's a challenge to you guys that have a problem with the definitions of native and natural being based on mans' intervention: Come up with a meaningful definition for either that doesn't specify an arbitrary, specific time. I don't think you can do it without your definition logically leading to accepting genetically engineered animals as native or a nuclear wasteland as natural. Maybe for some of you a genetically engineered animal could be native and a nuclear wasteland is a natural environment. If so, we're on different planets when we're having discussions using these words. Willi Many species are invaders without having been introduced by humans. Indigenous can simply mean (in reference to humans) the original inhabitants or those who have been there the longest, considering that the original inhabitants may be long gone. I don't think it is a term that works well in the non-human world. Humans are part of the natural world and they have been shaping it even at the prehistoric level. The indigenous populations of North America were shaping the flora and fauna well before Columbus showed up. Perhaps some brought animals (dogs?) across Beringia -- we don't know. We can't just look at human intervention as a recent, Western thing, though obviously the rate of extinction and introduction has greatly accelerated with the spread of Western industrialized society. But it is just that, an acceleration, not a beginning. For the sake of conservation, we can adopted the label of "native" -- meaning not introduced by humans. It was there before human arrival and intervention (or more popularly, before the coming of the white man). We can choose to focus on the time span after the start of the Industrial Revolution as before that period, human intervention happened at a much slower rate. For example, the development of corn from its tiny, original wild state to the large, domesticated cob today, took the indigenous peoples of North America centuries to accomplish. Modern genetic manipulation today could achieve the same thing over a decade or so. That said, it is a worthwhile thing to preserve native species just from the diversity aspect alone. While some would try to place value on some native species and not others (favouring brookies over an endangered sucker), we should not do so. It is ironic to read the whining that recently introduced species are harming other introduced species that we happen to like. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
"Willi" wrote in message ... ...Here's a challenge to you guys that have a problem with the definitions of native and natural being based on mans' intervention: Come up with a meaningful definition for either that doesn't specify an arbitrary, specific time. I don't think you can do it without your definition logically leading to accepting genetically engineered animals as native or a nuclear wasteland as natural. Maybe for some of you a genetically engineered animal could be native and a nuclear wasteland is a natural environment. If so, we're on different planets when we're having discussions using these words. Definitions are beautiful and terrible things. A definition of anything as "native" or "natural" that takes human intervention into account may seem simple at a glance, but it ain't so. Looking at North America (with which I am most familiar) for example, the hasty will be willing enough to declare anything that predates Columbus as native. Aside from the obvious introduction of humans anywhere from about 20,000 to 100,000 years ago.....I think that pretty much covers the spectrum of estimates.....there is also the problem of whatever microflora and microfauna they brought with them, in addition to the possibility of larger species. While this may seem like a niggling detail as compared to the wholesale introductions that occurred in the 15th through the 20th centuries, anyone familiar the basic principles of epidemiology will understand its significance. Language is always fraught with slippery and often hard to detect biases. "Genetic engineering", as the term is generally understood today, typically refers to various techniques...recombinant DNA being the most familiar...developed over the past few decades. IF the term is used with that in mind, some of the obstacles to understanding and agreement may be removed, but others remain in place, and most stubbornly so. In fact, humans have been actively and very busily engaged in genetic engineering of another sort for thousands of years.....compare teosinte with modern hybrid corn (aka maize) for one of the classic examples. Human induced selective pressures are so pervasive, in fact, that virtually NO important vegetative food crops can be considered "natural" in the sense that they are free of human meddling. Basmati rice, apples, sweet corn, cauliflower, Carpathian walnuts, Peruvian purple potatoes, tomatoes, wax beans, Bing cherries, and a host of other things we take for granted simply didn't exist 50,000 years ago. Animal species, for reasons that should be obvious (think motility, for instance) have been somewhat less tractable than plants, in the main, but the principle holds nevertheless. The best we can hope for, and it really isn't too complicated (which is not at all the same thing as not too difficult), is to find a definition for terms that is simple enough to work with within a given context and for a specific purpose. Unfortunately, and as is virtually always the case, the best we can hope for is always more than we can reasonably hope for. The barrier to fruitful discussion is not a matter of a dearth of useful definitions, but rather a plentitude of agendas to which mutually acceptable definitions are anathema. So, the by now bored reader might wonder, what does all this pompous pedantry lead to? Well, the CAREFUL reader will have noted that the terms "understanding" and "agreement" were used above in a manner that suggests they go hand in hand but, more often than not, people looking for one are working at cross purposes to those interested in the other. For people striving toward agreement, understanding is a gross impediment, while those for whom understanding is the goal must eventually come to the conclusion that agreement is a chimera. Wolfgang who would be happy enough to supply useful definitions......if it weren't so much fun to watch people thrash each other over things that are comprehensible to none of them. :) |
Lake Ontario
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .com... ....Wolfie would never forgive me if I chased your stupid ass out of here before he had a chance to join in the fun. I will never forgive you if you chase this one out of here AT ALL! I mean, how long has it been since we got a clown in here capable of driving such a diverse crowd to so high a degree of consensus? :) Wolfgang who, as a long time collector of abysmally stupid, realizes how infrequently such an exquisite specimen falls into one's lap. |
Lake Ontario
Okay, Mr. Fortenberry.
-- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "JR" wrote in message ... Outdoors Magazine wrote: JR, Seems Fortenberry is amusing enough for me. Not you? That's Mr. JR to you, Magazine Boy. JR --Not surprised to find this one doesn't read English any better than it writes it. |
Lake Ontario
Mr. Fortenberry,
Thank you. I won't argue with you. I will just tell you: you are wrong. You big, bad newsgroup bully. You are too funny. Surely, you can't be serious. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .com... Outdoors Magazine wrote: Mr. Fortenberry, The only thing you have caught is a case of bad manners. As usual you have nothing constructive to offer. What do I have to do, draw you a ****in' picture ? Posting an entire copyrighted article to a Usenet newsgroup is a copyright violation. If you want us to read an article post ONLY the URL, or if it's over 70 characters long do as I did and post the output from http://tinyurl.com Remember this ? http://tinyurl.com/x2u0 That's the way to do it, you feebleminded moron, and adding a sentence or two, in your own words, telling us why this article is of interest to us is good form also. Now was that "constructive" enough for you ? I would be even more "constructive", but Wolfie would never forgive me if I chased your stupid ass out of here before he had a chance to join in the fun. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
Here just for your entertainment, Mr. Wolfie. After all, all the world is;
is it not? Diverse? Nah, the more you post, the more you all sound the same. Take a read sometime. -- James Ehlers Outdoors Magazine www.outdoorsmagazine.net "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .com... ....Wolfie would never forgive me if I chased your stupid ass out of here before he had a chance to join in the fun. I will never forgive you if you chase this one out of here AT ALL! I mean, how long has it been since we got a clown in here capable of driving such a diverse crowd to so high a degree of consensus? :) Wolfgang who, as a long time collector of abysmally stupid, realizes how infrequently such an exquisite specimen falls into one's lap. |
Lake Ontario
Wolfgang wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote: ....Wolfie would never forgive me if I chased your stupid ass out of here before he had a chance to join in the fun. I will never forgive you if you chase this one out of here AT ALL! I mean, how long has it been since we got a clown in here capable of driving such a diverse crowd to so high a degree of consensus? :) Wolfgang who, as a long time collector of abysmally stupid, realizes how infrequently such an exquisite specimen falls into one's lap. When the raving loon finally realizes that several hundred sportsmen who might have been tempted to browse through his magazine will now guffaw at the mere sight of it in a fly shop, and tell their friends why they're laughing, he will disappear in big hurry. I wasn't going to be THAT "constructive" until I grew tired of toying with the nitwit, but 'tripper has already let that cat out of the bag so I fear the end of our fun and games with this most exquisite specimen of Usenet stupidity is drawing nigh. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Lake Ontario
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .com... Wolfgang wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote: ....Wolfie would never forgive me if I chased your stupid ass out of here before he had a chance to join in the fun. I will never forgive you if you chase this one out of here AT ALL! I mean, how long has it been since we got a clown in here capable of driving such a diverse crowd to so high a degree of consensus? :) Wolfgang who, as a long time collector of abysmally stupid, realizes how infrequently such an exquisite specimen falls into one's lap. When the raving loon finally realizes that several hundred sportsmen who might have been tempted to browse through his magazine will now guffaw at the mere sight of it in a fly shop, and tell their friends why they're laughing, he will disappear in big hurry. I wasn't going to be THAT "constructive" until I grew tired of toying with the nitwit, but 'tripper has already let that cat out of the bag so I fear the end of our fun and games with this most exquisite specimen of Usenet stupidity is drawing nigh. No, no, no, all wrong! WHEN it leaves.....or whether or not it EVER does, for whatever inscrutable reasons of its own, for that matter.....are absolutely irrelevant. Pause a while.....and sniff.......that's right, sniff. Familiar? I should think so! Redolence of tetherball, or I am no judge of aroma. Whether or not it is the same old tetherball is, of course, immaterial.....one is very much like the next. The point is that it STILL doesn't have a clue.....Tripper can wear himself out with the bat....and the bat.....AND the tetherball....and it STILL won't have a clue. It saddens me a bit....not much, but just a bit....that so many fail to recognize a gift from God when it smacks them upside the head. It isn't every day that Isaac offers himself up without the intervention of Abraham. Wolfgang |
Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
Wolfgang wrote: Definitions are beautiful and terrible things. A definition of anything as "native" or "natural" that takes human intervention into account may seem simple at a glance, but it ain't so. Looking at North America (with which I am most familiar) for example, the hasty will be willing enough to declare anything that predates Columbus as native. Aside from the obvious introduction of humans anywhere from about 20,000 to 100,000 years ago.....I think that pretty much covers the spectrum of estimates.....there is also the problem of whatever microflora and microfauna they brought with them, in addition to the possibility of larger species. While this may seem like a niggling detail as compared to the wholesale introductions that occurred in the 15th through the 20th centuries, anyone familiar the basic principles of epidemiology will understand its significance. Man has been around for awhile but his impact on the world's environment has been anything but constant during that time. Man has made more changes to the world's environment in the last 200 years than the rest of the time he has been on this planet. You go back a few thousand years and man's impact was much more in balance with the impact of other animals. Language is always fraught with slippery and often hard to detect biases. "Genetic engineering", as the term is generally understood today, typically refers to various techniques...recombinant DNA being the most familiar...developed over the past few decades. IF the term is used with that in mind, some of the obstacles to understanding and agreement may be removed, but others remain in place, and most stubbornly so. In fact, humans have been actively and very busily engaged in genetic engineering of another sort for thousands of years.....compare teosinte with modern hybrid corn (aka maize) for one of the classic examples. Human induced selective pressures are so pervasive, in fact, that virtually NO important vegetative food crops can be considered "natural" in the sense that they are free of human meddling. I agree. Basmati rice, apples, sweet corn, cauliflower, Carpathian walnuts, Peruvian purple potatoes, tomatoes, wax beans, Bing cherries, and a host of other things we take for granted simply didn't exist 50,000 years ago. Animal species, for reasons that should be obvious (think motility, for instance) have been somewhat less tractable than plants, in the main, but the principle holds nevertheless. Animals as well as plants have changed dramatically through selective breeding. I see selective breeding and genetic engineering as two very different things. However, I don't think either method can produce native plants or animals. The best we can hope for, and it really isn't too complicated (which is not at all the same thing as not too difficult), is to find a definition for terms that is simple enough to work with within a given context and for a specific purpose. Unfortunately, and as is virtually always the case, the best we can hope for is always more than we can reasonably hope for. The barrier to fruitful discussion is not a matter of a dearth of useful definitions, but rather a plentitude of agendas to which mutually acceptable definitions are anathema. So, the by now bored reader might wonder, what does all this pompous pedantry lead to? Well, the CAREFUL reader will have noted that the terms "understanding" and "agreement" were used above in a manner that suggests they go hand in hand but, more often than not, people looking for one are working at cross purposes to those interested in the other. For people striving toward agreement, understanding is a gross impediment, while those for whom understanding is the goal must eventually come to the conclusion that agreement is a chimera. I think that definitions in math and science play a different role. The language of the sciences is much "tighter." Even though there is not always total agreement about definitions and sometimes definitions are proven "wrong" or not useful, accepted definitions are a necessary part of the sciences. Wolfgang who would be happy enough to supply useful definitions......if it weren't so much fun to watch people thrash each other over things that are comprehensible to none of them. :) Don't think there will be many takers. Most Roffians find more amusement in toying around with Mr. Outdoor Magazine! Willi |
Lake Ontario
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:33:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Wolfgang wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote: ....Wolfie would never forgive me if I chased your stupid ass out of here before he had a chance to join in the fun. I will never forgive you if you chase this one out of here AT ALL! I mean, how long has it been since we got a clown in here capable of driving such a diverse crowd to so high a degree of consensus? :) Wolfgang who, as a long time collector of abysmally stupid, realizes how infrequently such an exquisite specimen falls into one's lap. When the raving loon finally realizes that several hundred sportsmen who might have been tempted to browse through his magazine will now guffaw at the mere sight of it in a fly shop, and tell their friends why they're laughing, he will disappear in big hurry. I wasn't going to be THAT "constructive" until I grew tired of toying with the nitwit, but 'tripper has already let that cat out of the bag so I fear the end of our fun and games with this most exquisite specimen of Usenet stupidity is drawing nigh. Aw, that's like blaming the batter for a passed ball... /daytripper (ok, fine. have it your way - just don't bloody up the joint ;-) |
Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
"Willi" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: Definitions are beautiful and terrible things. A definition of anything as "native" or "natural" that takes human intervention into account may seem simple at a glance, but it ain't so. Looking at North America (with which I am most familiar) for example, the hasty will be willing enough to declare anything that predates Columbus as native. Aside from the obvious introduction of humans anywhere from about 20,000 to 100,000 years ago.....I think that pretty much covers the spectrum of estimates.....there is also the problem of whatever microflora and microfauna they brought with them, in addition to the possibility of larger species. While this may seem like a niggling detail as compared to the wholesale introductions that occurred in the 15th through the 20th centuries, anyone familiar the basic principles of epidemiology will understand its significance. Man has been around for awhile but his impact on the world's environment has been anything but constant during that time. Man has made more changes to the world's environment in the last 200 years than the rest of the time he has been on this planet. Well, maybe. I mean, I guess it depends, at least in part, on how you define "more changes".....or who does the defining, for that matter. I've been meaning to ask that very question of the Pleistocene megafauna......but they never return my calls. :( Then too, there's that distressing business of grazing animals and deserts and all that ****. You go back a few thousand years and man's impact was much more in balance with the impact of other animals. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that you're not a gomphothere. Language is always fraught with slippery and often hard to detect biases. "Genetic engineering", as the term is generally understood today, typically refers to various techniques...recombinant DNA being the most familiar...developed over the past few decades. IF the term is used with that in mind, some of the obstacles to understanding and agreement may be removed, but others remain in place, and most stubbornly so. In fact, humans have been actively and very busily engaged in genetic engineering of another sort for thousands of years.....compare teosinte with modern hybrid corn (aka maize) for one of the classic examples. Human induced selective pressures are so pervasive, in fact, that virtually NO important vegetative food crops can be considered "natural" in the sense that they are free of human meddling. I agree. Probably a mistake. Basmati rice, apples, sweet corn, cauliflower, Carpathian walnuts, Peruvian purple potatoes, tomatoes, wax beans, Bing cherries, and a host of other things we take for granted simply didn't exist 50,000 years ago. Animal species, for reasons that should be obvious (think motility, for instance) have been somewhat less tractable than plants, in the main, but the principle holds nevertheless. Animals as well as plants have changed dramatically through selective breeding. True, but to nowhere near the same extent either in terms of number species or, generally, degree of change. There are very good....and very well understood....reasons for this. There are also extensive and readily available resources explaining these reasons. I see selective breeding and genetic engineering as two very different things. So do I.......in some limited contexts having to do mainly with more or less current legal, ethical, and public health issues. However, if the ancient Mesoamericans had worked within the same cultural framework as we (a substantial stretch, I admit) "genetic engineering" would have a pedigree roughly equal to that of monotheism or historiography and considerably more impressive than that of say, the existential dilemma. However, I don't think either method can produce native plants or animals. Human chauvinism, no different than that which informs the biblical imperative to subjugate the Earth and its multifarious inhabitants. From a geological perspective the difference between natives and invaders doesn't amount to half a jar of cold ****. Or, to put it another way, what you....or I....think is less than irrelevant absent a consensus....or....to put it yet another way, see the paragraph immediately below. The best we can hope for, and it really isn't too complicated (which is not at all the same thing as not too difficult), is to find a definition for terms that is simple enough to work with within a given context and for a specific purpose. Unfortunately, and as is virtually always the case, the best we can hope for is always more than we can reasonably hope for. The barrier to fruitful discussion is not a matter of a dearth of useful definitions, but rather a plentitude of agendas to which mutually acceptable definitions are anathema. So, the by now bored reader might wonder, what does all this pompous pedantry lead to? Well, the CAREFUL reader will have noted that the terms "understanding" and "agreement" were used above in a manner that suggests they go hand in hand but, more often than not, people looking for one are working at cross purposes to those interested in the other. For people striving toward agreement, understanding is a gross impediment, while those for whom understanding is the goal must eventually come to the conclusion that agreement is a chimera. I think that definitions in math and science play a different role. Yes, to a large extent. The successes enjoyed by the sciences (and they are considerable successes) reflect, among other things, the degree of consensus concerning what is being explored and debated. The language of the sciences is much "tighter." Even though there is not always total agreement about definitions and sometimes definitions are proven "wrong" or not useful, accepted definitions are a necessary part of the sciences. Wolfgang who would be happy enough to supply useful definitions......if it weren't so much fun to watch people thrash each other over things that are comprehensible to none of them. :) Don't think there will be many takers. Most Roffians find more amusement in toying around with Mr. Outdoor Magazine! Not surprising. After all, ROFF is what it is. Wolfgang who really wouldn't want it to be anything else. |
Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
Wolfgang wrote: Not surprising. After all, ROFF is what it is. Wolfgang who really wouldn't want it to be anything else. For me, it's a part of ROFF I can do without. I don't see the humor, satisfaction or pleasure in toying around with some clueless, easy target that puts his foot in his mouth with every sentence. (I know I need to get a sense of humor, but I think I'll pass on that type of humor). Willi |
Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
"Willi" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: Not surprising. After all, ROFF is what it is. Wolfgang who really wouldn't want it to be anything else. For me, it's a part of ROFF I can do without. I don't see the humor, satisfaction or pleasure in toying around with some clueless, easy target that puts his foot in his mouth with every sentence. Well, try toying with someone who is NOT a clueless easy target some time, and I think you will see that the other is indeed more humorous and satisfying. (I know I need to get a sense of humor, but I think I'll pass on that type of humor). You may pass on whatever you wish, but I suggest that a search of the archives will reveal that you have not always been quite so picky. Wolfgang sanctimony sucks. |
Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
Wolfgang wrote: Man has been around for awhile but his impact on the world's environment has been anything but constant during that time. Man has made more changes to the world's environment in the last 200 years than the rest of the time he has been on this planet. Well, maybe. I mean, I guess it depends, at least in part, on how you define "more changes".....or who does the defining, for that matter. I've been meaning to ask that very question of the Pleistocene megafauna......but they never return my calls. :( Then too, there's that distressing business of grazing animals and deserts and all that ****. Give me a break. That's pretty weak. However, I don't think either method can produce native plants or animals. Human chauvinism, no different than that which informs the biblical imperative to subjugate the Earth and its multifarious inhabitants. From a geological perspective the difference between natives and invaders doesn't amount to half a jar of cold ****. Or, to put it another way, what you....or I....think is less than irrelevant absent a consensus....or....to put it yet another way, see the paragraph immediately below. Not sure why one should take a geological perspective. From a geological perspective, the extinction of man wouldn't amount to half a jar of ****. It may be human chauvinism, but we're talking about the definition of human words. (at least I think we are) Willi |
Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
Wolfgang wrote: Not surprising. After all, ROFF is what it is. Wolfgang who really wouldn't want it to be anything else. For me, it's a part of ROFF I can do without. I don't see the humor, satisfaction or pleasure in toying around with some clueless, easy target that puts his foot in his mouth with every sentence. Well, try toying with someone who is NOT a clueless easy target some time, and I think you will see that the other is indeed more humorous and satisfying. (I know I need to get a sense of humor, but I think I'll pass on that type of humor). You may pass on whatever you wish, but I suggest that a search of the archives will reveal that you have not always been quite so picky. Wolfgang sanctimony sucks. (But pomposity rules?) Nah, I'm just a "sinner", so you're probably right. But I don't think I've ever reveled in "gang banging" a clueless newby, but I could be wrong. Willi |
Lake Ontario
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:23:22 GMT, "Outdoors Magazine"
wrote: Mr. Fortenberry, Thank you. I won't argue with you. I will just tell you: you are wrong. You big, bad newsgroup bully. You are too funny. Surely, you can't be serious. Rude he might be, but in this instance he's quite correct. You violated copyright. You came very close to implying that the writer was on _your_ staff. Were it not for one line near the bottom of your post (after the copyright violation), mentioning the Post, you'd not have a toe to stand on. -- rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing. Often taunted by trout. Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
Lake Ontario
"Outdoors Magazine" wrote in news:KZuyb.6382
: Thank you. I won't argue with you. I will just tell you: you are wrong. Actually, he's right, about copyright anyway. Unless you can post "reprinted with permission", he's on the money about the copyright. The Post-Standard of Syracuse needs to be contacted for such permission. They will likely ask you for the exact use you intend for the piece, and possibly grant limited permission for that particular use. As for attribution, clearer would have been nicer, but I think it was sufficient. It was an interesting article-- many folk are quite worried about the possible collapse of mysis shrimp due to exotic competition, and fear the whole fishery might collapse like dominoes-- but if you can't produce a document from the Post-Standard granting permission for redistribution, you're in the wrong here. Yeah, this goes on all the time, but I'd expect more from a magazine editor. Scott |
Lake Ontario
|
Lake Ontario
Scott wrote:
Interesting....the introduction of nonindigenous species is adversely affecting other nonindigenous species. Alewives, rainbows, and the Pacific salmon (Chinook and Coho) were all introduced into the Great Lakes. Curious that the article seems to make no mention of this. It's also interesting to note that the reintroduction of native Atlantic Salmon has had extremely limited success in Ontario. Perhaps due to competition from the nonindigenous species? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:07 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter